Hyman Rosen wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > Does the following help, Hyman? > > http://terekhov.de/2009-1221/AppelleeBrief.pdf > > Not in the slightest. The amicus brief is correct. The > harm done by violation of open copyright licenses is > irreparable and immediate precisely because it is non- > economic in nature.
Non-economic doesn't mean irreparable and immediate, silly. > > Harm caused by typical copyright violation is repaired > by forcing the violators to pay what they would have > paid had they proceeded legally. And contract laws provide for remedy known as "specific performance". > Once open-licensed > code is distributed to users without making them aware > of their extra-copyright permissions, the interests of > the copyright holder as expressed by his license can't > generally be recovered because the users aren't tracked. Who told you that Appellees didn't track the users of allegedly infringed material? The record is full of evidence to the contrary, stupid. > > Naturally the appellee brief will argue against this, > but that doesn't mean they're correct. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_telephone_number Hth, Hyman. regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
